FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/11/2012 10:42:09 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressherald.com ...
Candidates mean a political attack; citizens have no standing. NO ONE is able/willing to enforce this national security provision of the US Constitution.
That is to say: America is HOSED.
A puppet, a homosexual, an illegal immigrant, a Muslim and a Communist walk into a bar. Bartender looks up and says "What'll it be, Mr. pResident?"
Thanks for the Ping, Nully.
Qualified or not, he's still the President. And the impeachment process is the only way to remove a president.
That said, if he is not an NBC his mere presence acting in the office is criminal, and those having the power to throw him out, by not doing so, become co-conspirators.
That is true. However, other than the ballot box, there is no way to enforce it.
Legal standing is at the heart of the matter in this case, although it shouldn't be. It has nothing to do with anybody "agreeing" on anything. And what a stupid statement anyway. The Supreme Court is the nation's highest judicial authority with the duty to resolve questions arising under the Constitution. Obama's illegitimacy is a perfect case to resolve. He was never legitmate so his presidency should be annulled immediately. You know it, so don't pretend you don't.
The legislative branch, judicial branch and executive branch are worth a happy crap anymore, such is the state of our country and it shows everyday.
Apparently you don't comprehend what you are saying: it is equivalent to saying "even if no even number besides 2 may be prime, we must consider four to be prime."
The Constitution says:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.We can shorten it down a bit, because of things that don't apply here, to:
Your whole argument is that he is the president, mine is that he is not even eligible to hold the office, by the restrictions in the Constitution.
>That said, if he is not an NBC his mere presence acting in the office is criminal, and those having the power to throw him out, by not doing so, become co-conspirators.
That is true. However, other than the ballot box, there is no way to enforce it.
Yes, there is; there are multiple ways: Secretaries of State, for instance, qualifying any candidate before allowing them on the ballot; lawsuits {though these have failed; I reject the notion that no person has standing; and lastly, there is... unpleasantness, which would undoubtedly spark another civil war (which is ironic, considering that not doing so could cause that civil war as well.
Just remember, if the Constitution is meaningless then it affords no protection to anyone, in either direction. If it is worthless, then all laws made under its authority are likewise useless; and that means that there is no sedition, or treason, or any other [statutory] crime.
As to 2008, that's water under the bridge. He's President, qualified or not, removable only via impeachment.
As to 2012, it's a totally different question. Is he qualified to be on the ballot for 2012? Elections are across the fifty states, and they have their secretaries of state.
The Supreme Court might have a role, should they choose to take the right case. But, if I were they, it would have to be slam dunk: Obama was born in Kenya, and not of Stanley Ann.
Not going to happen.
What is going to happen is, Obama is going to carry DC. There will be long faces on MSNBC. Then the Village of South Chicago will regain its idiot, effective the afternoon of 20 January 2013! And Article II will not have had a role!!
The Constitution tells us who can and cannot legally be President. If one "fails to qualify", he/she can NEVER be President. The term "No Person" at the beginning of the eligibility requirements in Article Two is quite specific. It doesn't say "No person, except those who manage to sneak in due to the negligence of Congress". You are saying that there is no such thing as a "Usurper" with your argument, yet, that is what we have here. Impeachments apply to legal Presidents, while a simple arrest will do with a usurpation.
“It has nothing to do with anybody “agreeing” on anything.”
Yes it does. If there is 100% agreement on what the law says - and there is, regarding parentage of a President - then there is nothing to resolve.
You, as an individual, may be (and are) a nutjob, and courts don’t want to waste their time with nuts. If a law or ruling affects everyone equally, then no one has standing so that a few thousand weird people cannot clog up the courts.
Until a state denies someone like Obama a spot on the ballot, there is nothing for a court to resolve. Everyone with a legal interest is agreed. And if 535 out of 535 Congressmen agree, then Congress won’t deal with the matter. Why should they? They are already in agreement.
All 50 states and all 535 members of Congress agree - if Obama was born in the USA, he is a natural born citizen. And until you can convince at least ONE state of 50, there is no reason for a Federal court to take up a case.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Very good analysis. It seems rather obvious after you’ve pointed it out, unfortunately too many courts nowadays simply believe the “law” is what they say it is.
We need to repair our legal system by tossing out Judges with such attitudes.
Ha! That's a good one! Many a true word is said in jest.
I have been pondering your question. It has been years since I've read revelations, and much of it is difficult to follow anyway. Some of my Relatives believe America *IS* mentioned in revelations, but I no longer recall their reference. I recall the mention of Gog and MeGog, which is often regarded as the Russians, but I am not certain how they interpreted America as being mentioned in Revelations. In any case, why would you think America is not mentioned in Revelations?
There seem to be a lot of people who get into power and afterwards feel chafing at the constraints placed upon them by the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln simply admitted that he had to suspend parts of the Constitution to save the Union.
Nowadays people simply refuse to consider the possibility they’ve botched things up. And that’s what this is all really about. The Vetting of his eligibility should have been done prior to the Democratic Primary, and the fact that it was not, left everyone in an awkward position. Had we not selected McCain (who possessed his own eligibility problem politically) the issue would likely have been brought out more forcefully, but McCain saw only the damage it would cause him should the issue be brought up, and he didn’t consider it important anyway.
The Republican establishment got behind him in lockstep and agreed to disparage anyone who dared bring the topic up. Bottom line, not too many people care about the enforcement of rules (Laws) they don’t like anyways.
You’re exactly right.
The refusal by a single member of Congress to call for proof from Obama that he met the constitutional qualifications was the final signal to me that our entire political class was completely GONE.
Not one of them was the least bit concerned about their own sacred oath.
“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?” - George Washington
This reminds me of the Dred Scott era, when the Supreme Court was acting schizoid over a 40 year period.
I call it “ the run up to the 2nd Civil War.”
We have a usurper and a so called president who is not qualified under Article II of the Constitution, for the office in which he pretends. If the Court will not hear the issue, Obama and his supporters , down to Obama’s very legacy, will be removed by force eventually.
May the Constitution rule!
Because it isn't.
I think you meant to ask "why do you think America is not mentioned in Revelations?"
I think it is because by the time the events described in Revelations transpire, America has been rendered irrelevant.
That scares the crap out of me, it does.
Bingo! That is the money-quote.
And that’s what this is all really about. The Vetting of his eligibility should have been done prior to the Democratic Primary, and the fact that it was not, left everyone in an awkward position.
Indeed; after his selection in the Democrat primary, to fail to support him would be to fail to support the Democrat party. Moreover, to investigate his eligibility at that point would be to undermine the Party's leadership and therefore its authority.
After Congress certified the votes of the electors, they were all party to putting him into power and guilty of negligence. (Add to this the things Congress has tried to do to nullify the NBC-clause without explicitly amending the Constitution and it becomes very easy to imagine conspiracy theories -- they did it with McCain and a 'resolution' considering him to be a Natural Born Citizen -- the two primary parties fielding candidates who were not certainly NBC-qualified, and now two who are certainly not NBC-qualified, makes it seem like they've pulled a Morton's Fork on us to establish "precedent".)
And so this is how it snowballed, each failure of a group with responsibility to act appropriately and responsibly increased the fallout from the problem until we arrived here with the political equivalent of Chernobyl.
Had we not selected McCain (who possessed his own eligibility problem politically) the issue would likely have been brought out more forcefully, but McCain saw only the damage it would cause him should the issue be brought up, and he didn’t consider it important anyway.
I don't agree; I think the parties fielded candidates of questionable qualifications precisely to set precedent for nullifying the NBC clause, and therefore the rest of the Constitution; after all, if the people-as-a-whole do not demand that it be followed then they can literally get away with anything. Case-in-point: TSA screenings, any other place/circumstance and the actions would be considered sexual assault and molestation (and are certainly violative of the 4th Amendment), yet they can do it because only a small group of people so much as squawk. The Republican establishment got behind him in lockstep and agreed to disparage anyone who dared bring the topic up. Bottom line, not too many people care about the enforcement of rules (Laws) they don’t like anyways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.